I don't really see how anyone can be in both groups at once - either you think its OK to have content made or adjusted on the fly or you don't.
The two camps that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] was speaking about were those who prefer to play in a tactical manner, such as you, and those that enjoy "escapist roleplaying". This wasn't necessarily about changing content or not. And I don't see why people can't view the game as a tactical game, and also as escapist roleplay. I feel like my game incorporates both.
I think that's kind of like saying you're a vegetarian who only eats meat when he's hungry.....You can't be in the sandbox and be compatible with this style of play. In this style of play, the players go where the (prepared) adventure is, not to some undeveloped country that needs to be generated on the fly by an omnipotent godlike person called the DM - because THAT in our opinion taints their agency.
Meh, agency is being "tainted" either way. Sure, you can say that a DM making content up on the fly could minimize the PCs' agency. I don't think that it must do so, but it certainly could. But your style is no less guilty. They must proceed in the manner expected by your pre-written adventure. That is a limitation on their agency. Now, your players may not mind it at all, so it may not be an issue for your group, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it.
This is why I think that games can utilize elements of both styles. Why can't they? I mean, I can design an adventure with a linear section followed by a sandbox section pretty easily.....let's say they have to take a road to get to the "lost valley". The road is linear, the valley is an open environment.
I think there are so many examples of this that I cannot even really understand your insistence that they cannot coexist.
Why would a DM playing this way get bored? Taking off the omnipotent DM hat opens the door to a fun world of tactical challenge !!! Once I have crafted the scene and we are gathered and ready to play, I am not the "DM" any more - I am the bad guys, and usually that means I want to kill the PCs and use all the tactical skill I can to do so - u players better be on your game if you want to make it out of here alive lol. I don't fudge die rolls, pull my punches, or add monsters as needed. I get what I came with, and that's it.
Okay....but have you not ever made a mistake in what you've prepared? What if you realize that you have made an encounter that is unintentionally far too challenging? How do you handle that when it happens?
Don't get me wrong....I throw encounters that are beyond my PCs from a combat perspective from time to time. But I do it to remind them that sometimes combat is not the answer, and there are always ways past such incredibly difficult combats. But that's a benefit of a more open approach. In a very linear style, it may very well be that there is one route to progress to the next part of the story....and if that one route is blicked by an unintentionally difficult encounter, then the PCs may very well be screwed.
As a DM, do you try to correct such a situation or do you just play the villains to the hilt and crush the PCs?
The players leave the balancing and steering to me, and I balance based on 5 players - but I always have contingencies written into my encounters that if I have 4 or 6 players to subtract/add certain monsters. So if a player can't make it, leaves early, or arrives late, we don't have a problem.
So you are willing to adjust encounters based on the prevailing circumstances at the table....how is that really different from what others have said? Do you limit such changes to be based on the number of players only? Are there other factors that may warrant such changes? Do you only allow changes that you've considered and written beforehand?
You use the "omniscient DM" comment as a joke a lot....but it sounds like you must be one in order to never make a mistake along these lines....
Neutrally applied rulings do not have to come from the DM - I usually have a particular one of our players do player rulings ("
Can I cast this spell, run over here, and jump across that chasm?"). My narration is provided by pre-written descriptions and 3D modelling. I put DCs in my write-ups to cover most all contingencies, including reinforcement times in complexes etc. Still, an occasional ruling peeks in, but I'm usually successful in avoiding all but a couple minor ones per session. So I always strive to be free to focus on playing the monsters, although if 7 guys unexpectedly show up, I will delegate their play away as well. We've all played dozens of board games together, so we are no stranger to changing sides lol
I find it interesting that you delegate to a player for rulings. I don't think there's anything wrong with that....but since I've seen you question a DM's impartiality, I am surprised to see you rely on a players impartiality for rulings. Surely if a player can be impartial, so can a DM, no?
Maybe he's scouting. Maybe he was distracted by something in another room, or caught in a trap. Maybe he's 'guarding the horses...'
